I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it. Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs. Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices. I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both. Discuss.